HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Mike Millbury is a tool

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-23-2009, 03:28 PM
  #1
skilletboy*
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mountin' Vieeew, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 185
vCash: 500
Mike Millbury is a tool

I was listeing to NHL live this morning and Mikle Millbury was on. He went so far as to say this loss was actually a "statement game" by Chicago...

TOTAL RUBBISH

If the Ducks taught the sharks anything last year in the first round, it is that it doesn't really matter who "played better", it only matters who wins. The Sharks totally outshot and skated circles around the Ducks last year in the first two games of that series but Hiller was better. Remember Joe Thornton saying "well, we played well so we'll be ok.", and Dan Boyle saying, "it doesn't matter how we played we didn't find a way to win." We have talked a lot about these two conflicting views...

The Versus crew and Mike Millbury act as if the Sharks dressed up some stragner off the street and put him in net, who proceeded to absolutley steal a game from the much better Blackhawks.

Perhaps the Sharks are finally learning that it doesn't matter who "plays better"or who outshoots who... at the end of the game you want your best players to be the best players on the ice. Nabby, Joe and Heatley all played great and they were the best players by far. The capitalized on their chances, which were fewer... Joe scores a shortie on a great play and they score 20 seconds after a Hawks goal, which I though totally defined and sealed this game for the Sharks...

Yes the Hawks are an elite team. But what exactly was their statement last night? "We're gonna shoot the hell out of the puck and hope for the best..." or maybe, "We are satisifed with 'playing better' when we can't find a way to win". Both of those "statements" are what people have been criticizing the Sharks for years about.

The Sharks skaters, aside from the PK, didn't play their best last night, agreed. Even with that though, they survived a Hawks onslaught, and WON... they finished when they needed, their best players stepped up, and Nabby was spectacular. Those are the wining combinations the Sharks need to bring come playoff time. You can be convinced all summer long you played better but you will still be hitting golf balls.

skilletboy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 03:38 PM
  #2
ThorntonFan19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
I was listeing to NHL live this morning and Mikle Millbury was on. He went so far as to say this loss was actually a "statement game" by Chicago...

TOTAL RUBBISH

If the Ducks taught the sharks anything last year in the first round, it is that it doesn't really matter who "played better", it only matters who wins. The Sharks totally outshot and skated circles around the Ducks last year in the first two games of that series but Hiller was better. Remember Joe Thornton saying "well, we played well so we'll be ok.", and Dan Boyle saying, "it doesn't matter how we played we didn't find a way to win." We have talked a lot about these two conflicting views...

The Versus crew and Mike Millbury act as if the Sharks dressed up some stragner off the street and put him in net, who proceeded to absolutley steal a game from the much better Blackhawks.

Perhaps the Sharks are finally learning that it doesn't matter who "plays better"or who outshoots who... at the end of the game you want your best players to be the best players on the ice. Nabby, Joe and Heatley all played great and they were the best players by far. The capitalized on their chances, which were fewer... Joe scores a shortie on a great play and they score 20 seconds after a Hawks goal, which I though totally defined and sealed this game for the Sharks...

Yes the Hawks are an elite team. But what exactly was their statement last night? "We're gonna shoot the hell out of the puck and hope for the best..." or maybe, "We are satisifed with 'playing better' when we can't find a way to win". Both of those "statements" are what people have been criticizing the Sharks for years about.

The Sharks skaters, aside from the PK, didn't play their best last night, agreed. Even with that though, they survived a Hawks onslaught, and WON... they finished when they needed, their best players stepped up, and Nabby was spectacular. Those are the wining combinations the Sharks need to bring come playoff time. You can be convinced all summer long you played better but you will still be hitting golf balls.
I dont really care what they say

Oh and did Thornton really say that? I have a really hard time believing that.

ThorntonFan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 03:52 PM
  #3
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,659
vCash: 500
Thornton said a lot of things that pissed all of us off in the playoffs...

Kitten Mittons is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 03:56 PM
  #4
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThorntonFan19 View Post
I dont really care what they say

Oh and did Thornton really say that? I have a really hard time believing that.
Several times.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 03:58 PM
  #5
SactoShork
The Youth Movement
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 3565
Here's a "statement"...

Sharks are 4th in the league in shooting percentage... Hawks are 20th. Sharks won with 14 shots, Hawks lost with 47.

SactoShork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 04:34 PM
  #6
Flicktron
Registered User
 
Flicktron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Tracy, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Milbury's always been a tool.

Flicktron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 04:38 PM
  #7
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 25,002
vCash: 500
Huet sucks, Nabby is kickass. We have better players who can shoot the puck.

Sharks win.

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 04:40 PM
  #8
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post
Here's a "statement"...

Sharks are 4th in the league in shooting percentage... Hawks are 20th. Sharks won with 14 shots, Hawks lost with 47.
We have 2 world class snipers (+ 1 soon to be) fed by one of the best passers to ever play the game. We also have one of the best offensive defensemen in the game today.

We better have a high shooting percentage.

We also better be able to put more than 14 shots on goal. That's laughable.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 04:48 PM
  #9
Shark Fin
Registered User
 
Shark Fin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Mike Milbury is the Islander Gm that traded away Spezza, Chara and Luongo. I wouldn't take any hockey advice from Milbury. Whatever he says is the opposite.

Shark Fin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 05:33 PM
  #10
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Fin View Post
Mike Milbury is the Islander Gm that traded away Spezza, Chara and Luongo. I wouldn't take any hockey advice from Milbury. Whatever he says is the opposite.
don't forget bertuzzi, mccabe, kasparitus, brewer, redden, salo, jokinen (oli), torres, connelly, and proceeded to draft dipietro a year after trading loungo (picking dipietro over heatley, gaborik)

Barrie22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 05:33 PM
  #11
renodave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 1,473
vCash: 500
I don't see what is so wrong about Milbury's comments. I think all he's trying to say is that you can outplay the opposition and still lose the game. The Hawks always put a lot of shots on net (like the Sharks used to do) but they don't score very much. They also don't give up very much since their philosophy seems to be "the best defense is a good offense". The difference in the Hawks-Sharks game was goaltending. Nabby was great while Huet was average. Great goaltending will always win out. However, I would much rather be in Chicago's situation where they are consistently tilting the ice in their favor versus having to rely on miracle goaltending performances.

renodave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 05:41 PM
  #12
Shark Fin
Registered User
 
Shark Fin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dburdick View Post
I don't see what is so wrong about Milbury's comments. I think all he's trying to say is that you can outplay the opposition and still lose the game. The Hawks always put a lot of shots on net (like the Sharks used to do) but they don't score very much. They also don't give up very much since their philosophy seems to be "the best defense is a good offense". The difference in the Hawks-Sharks game was goaltending. Nabby was great while Huet was average. Great goaltending will always win out. However, I would much rather be in Chicago's situation where they are consistently tilting the ice in their favor versus having to rely on miracle goaltending performances.
It's not miracle goaltending. It's called quality over quantity.

Shark Fin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 05:47 PM
  #13
Tomahawk214
i'm not even mad
 
Tomahawk214's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Davis, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Milbury is right around the same level of credibility as Eklund.

Tomahawk214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 06:29 PM
  #14
SactoShork
The Youth Movement
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 3565
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
We have 2 world class snipers (+ 1 soon to be) fed by one of the best passers to ever play the game. We also have one of the best offensive defensemen in the game today.

We better have a high shooting percentage.

We also better be able to put more than 14 shots on goal. That's laughable.
We didn't have a good percentage last year. In fact, we were 20th like the Hawks are this year. At the beginning of the season, it was well publicized that the Sharks would be aiming to get better shots on net this year. I think it's worked very well.

Hossa was quoted as saying that the Hawks need to have more "poise with the puck", and shoot from better angles. If anything, 47 shots is a sign of desperation rather than a "statement" of skill.

SactoShork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 06:36 PM
  #15
Mr Irrelevant
Registered User
 
Mr Irrelevant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
You can't just look at the shot totals. The Sharks played a much better game than that would indicate. How many of Chicago's shots were of a really high quality? Nabby made a lot of big saves but a lot of shots were from the perimeter and bad angles. I thought the Sharks played a pretty solid defensive game. Not that I wouldn't want to see them have more of the possession.

As for Milbury, isn't it weird how the most terrible recent GM in every sport always seems to get a TV gig? Steve Phillips had one until he was shown to have poor judgment in matters other than trading Scott Kazmir, and Matt Millen landed immediately as an NBC analyst after he got fired. Why do we care what these guys have to say?

Mr Irrelevant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 06:37 PM
  #16
WADEugottaBELAKthat
Flynt Flossy
 
WADEugottaBELAKthat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Did I mention that..
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
don't forget bertuzzi, mccabe, kasparitus, brewer, redden, salo, jokinen (oli), torres, connelly, and proceeded to draft dipietro a year after trading loungo (picking dipietro over heatley, gaborik)
sure he traded these guys. but he drafted them as well!

WADEugottaBELAKthat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 07:00 PM
  #17
coooldude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,940
vCash: 500
Shot percentage, blah blah... let's be honest. Sharks got 14 shots on goal. That's no good. Maybe of the 47 shots, lots were low quality like the Sharks of previous years. But 47 shots connotes game control. So do 7 power plays. That puck possession game is what we used to be good at, and now we're just trying to survive it. That's also no good.

In two games this year, Chicago has made us look foolish. We happened to steal one because of our goalie. Is anyone in here confident in a best-of-seven series against that Hawks team? If so, I don't understand how.

coooldude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 07:15 PM
  #18
SactoShork
The Youth Movement
 
SactoShork's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 9,914
vCash: 3565
Quote:
Originally Posted by coooldude View Post
Shot percentage, blah blah... let's be honest. Sharks got 14 shots on goal. That's no good. Maybe of the 47 shots, lots were low quality like the Sharks of previous years. But 47 shots connotes game control. So do 7 power plays. That puck possession game is what we used to be good at, and now we're just trying to survive it. That's also no good.

In two games this year, Chicago has made us look foolish. We happened to steal one because of our goalie. Is anyone in here confident in a best-of-seven series against that Hawks team? If so, I don't understand how.
blah blah yourself dude... what i witnessed was a desperate team that played from behind for 3 whole periods. Hopelessly chucking the puck from the worst angles.

how about the fact the Sharks completely controlled the middle of their zone the entire game? how about the toughness in front of the net? how about the clean breakouts that lead to odd man rushes and goals?

frankly, it's easy and lazy to pin the win on Nabokov, when there were several other major reasons the Sharks came away with that win.

SactoShork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 07:21 PM
  #19
gonegonegone*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,338
vCash: 500
This is the type of game we expected of the Sharks in the playoffs, where we dominate puck possession and shots but still lose (ie ana last year). Maybe this experience has given them the knowledge to beat teams like themselves? 47 shots is a lot but a ton of them were just crappy shots that even I could have stopped. Sharks defense played pretty solidly there, even when we couldn't retrieve the damn puck. But we didn't screw up any breakaways and we didn't allow many good quality chances.

And on the flip side, the few breakaways we had we burried them. We didn't do much in terms of peppering huet and setting up a time hogging cycle/umbrella, but hey this is how teams beat us in the past. We would spend entire shifts in their zone, only to see them score on us on a 2 on 2 breakaway from the nz.

I think goalies like to be challenged early and often with mediocre shots. It gets them hot or something. It's not a surprise that a lot of nabbys bad gmes come when we dominate the puck and he lets the first one on him go. Huet is much the same way.

gonegonegone* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 07:39 PM
  #20
sub_zero94
Registered User
 
sub_zero94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 473
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Mr Irrelevant;22819531]You can't just look at the shot totals. The Sharks played a much better game than that would indicate. How many of Chicago's shots were of a really high quality? Nabby made a lot of big saves but a lot of shots were from the perimeter and bad angles. I thought the Sharks played a pretty solid defensive game. Not that I wouldn't want to see them have more of the possession.
QUOTE]

i thought the Sharks were the more physical team as well

sub_zero94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 07:43 PM
  #21
DrFeelgood
Chairman Meow
 
DrFeelgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Redwood City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Fin View Post
Mike Milbury is the Islander Gm that traded away Spezza, Chara and Luongo. I wouldn't take any hockey advice from Milbury. Whatever he says is the opposite.
To counter your point, he is also the guy that jumped into the stands in MSG and beat up a fan with his own shoe.


DrFeelgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 07:45 PM
  #22
Semak
Moderator
_______________
 
Semak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Osaka, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 8,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shark Fin View Post
Mike Milbury is the Islander Gm that traded away Spezza, Chara and Luongo. I wouldn't take any hockey advice from Milbury. Whatever he says is the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
don't forget bertuzzi, mccabe, kasparitus, brewer, redden, salo, jokinen (oli), torres, connelly, and proceeded to draft dipietro a year after trading loungo (picking dipietro over heatley, gaborik)
Terrible GM and even worse commentator. Just drafting these players doesn't justify the fact he traded them. Funny enough, that's one of the most well thought out comments I ever heard from him and it's not saying much. I had enough from him from his days on the east coast. Ignore him fin fans.

Semak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 08:54 PM
  #23
coooldude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SactoShark View Post
blah blah yourself dude... what i witnessed was a desperate team that played from behind for 3 whole periods. Hopelessly chucking the puck from the worst angles.

how about the fact the Sharks completely controlled the middle of their zone the entire game? how about the toughness in front of the net? how about the clean breakouts that lead to odd man rushes and goals?

frankly, it's easy and lazy to pin the win on Nabokov, when there were several other major reasons the Sharks came away with that win.
Sure, there are other good things that happened for the sharks, but it's also always easy to find things that went well after a win. Hey, we scored on our chances, highly efficient conversion! but in a game of inches, could have gone the other way. Marleau's post makes it even better, while Toews's post totally changes the game. Hawks fans will say Huet should definitely stop the Demers goal, as opposed to sharks fans saying we converted our chances.

My real point: I wouldn't take 7 games like that against the Hawks, regardless of this game's outcome, regardless of the good things we did in this game. The odds are against you if you are outshot and outpossessed and outpenaltied that badly, no matter how good your 14 shots are or how bad the 47 shots are. Coach Todd tends to agree. And the twro games taken together vs. the Hawks don't make me excited to play them in a 7 game series, no matter how shoddy their goaltending.

coooldude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 10:13 PM
  #24
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 34,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coooldude View Post
Sure, there are other good things that happened for the sharks, but it's also always easy to find things that went well after a win. Hey, we scored on our chances, highly efficient conversion! but in a game of inches, could have gone the other way. Marleau's post makes it even better, while Toews's post totally changes the game. Hawks fans will say Huet should definitely stop the Demers goal, as opposed to sharks fans saying we converted our chances.

My real point: I wouldn't take 7 games like that against the Hawks, regardless of this game's outcome, regardless of the good things we did in this game. The odds are against you if you are outshot and outpossessed and outpenaltied that badly, no matter how good your 14 shots are or how bad the 47 shots are. Coach Todd tends to agree. And the twro games taken together vs. the Hawks don't make me excited to play them in a 7 game series, no matter how shoddy their goaltending.
I wouldn't care if the Hawks blew out the Sharks again 7-2 with that kind of shot margin. There are no statement games in December. Good or bad, whatever the Sharks and Hawks did last night is absolutely meaningless now and most definitely in the playoffs. The Sharks have been on both sides of this coin and it doesn't make a difference come playoff time. It doesn't matter how good or bad you play against a team in the regular season. All that matters is how you're playing at the time in general. Last year, the Ducks were playing good with good goaltending. The Sharks were playing mediocre with mediocre goaltending.

If you're looking at the three games the Sharks have played the Hawks so far this season as some sort of indicator for the playoffs, you're wasting your time. It's not.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-23-2009, 10:25 PM
  #25
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 25,002
vCash: 500
I like his quote on Eric Brewer "This kid plays like he's sniffing glue."

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.